THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 51
Razi in the latter’s al-Ilahiyat. According to Maimonides, Razi argues
there that “there is more evil than good in what exists.”^92 Maimonides
goes on to discuss the words of the Aristotelian phi losophers who, noting
the injustice in the division of good and evil in the world, challenge the
notion of Divine providence (Guide 3.16). Then, in chapter 19, while
still within the broad context of the question of providence and God’s
knowledge of individuals, Maimonides cites Psalm 94:8– 9, “Consider,
ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will you understand?
He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall
He not see?” He then says:
I shall now explain to you the meaning of this argument after I have
mentioned to you the way in which those who assault the prophets’
discourse misunderstand this discourse. Several years ago some dis-
tinguished individuals of our religious community, who were physi-
cians, told me that they wondered at this dictum of David. They said:
According to his way of reasoning, it would follow necessarily that
the Creator of the mouth eats and the Creator of the lung shouts and
the same would hold for all the other members.^93The question cited here by Maimonides challenges the logic of this verse,
on the assumption that the argument made in the verse is that whoever
makes any sort of vessel himself acts in accordance with the qualities of
that vessel. Maimonides replies by explaining that the logic of the verse is
in fact different: he who makes any vessel must certainly understand its
way of functioning. At fi rst glance, this passage does not present any dif-
fi culty. The question as such is a plausible exegetical one. Maimonides’
answer to the question, intended to show the providence and wisdom
inherent in creation, is related to the subject of the chapter. Since the is-
sue at hand is the wisdom revealed in the creation of the organs of the
human body, one can understand why physicians would be particularly
interested in this.
Nevertheless, the reader is left with a certain feeling of unease. The ques-
tion itself is a logical one, and has nothing to do with medicine. One can
understand why the one answering it might be a physician, who con-
stantly encounters the complexity of the human body; but hisinterlocutor
(^92) Guide 3.12 (Dalala, 318; Pines, 441). One should note that these unambiguous remarks
of Maimonides against Razi are not without diffi culty. There are passages that have been
preserved from a book of Razi’s bearing a similar name (Kitab al-ilm al- ilahi), and from
other works of Razi. The statement attributed to him by Maimonides does not appear there
in this precise form. See Abu Bakr al- Razi,Rasail Falsafi yya, ed. P. Kraus (Cairo, 1939)
165–90; M. Mohaghegh, Filsuf-i-Rayy (Tehran, 1974), 273– 76.
(^93) Guide 3.19 (Dalala, 346; Pines, 478); my translation here differs slightly from that of
Pines; see note 94, below.